The Man Who Would Trade His Daughter For a House; what makes a person a parent?

How an article about paternity fraud got me thinking about 3rd Party ART

I love reading the weekend papers but, these days, I often don't finish the weekend papers until mid-week. I savour my quiet time, often taking sections with me to bed, or grabbing 10 minutes with my morning coffee, while the children are looking for lost shoes and doing a last-minute brush of the teeth (I hope).  There hasn't been much of that recently, so, just this weekend, I finally grabbed my last section of the previous Sunday's Times, the News Review, before it hit the recycling pile. 

I mention my reading habits, which may not interest you, because I'm all churned up by an article published in the News Review a week ago, which I suppose, can no longer be called "current events."  Surprisingly, for a quirky and emotive issue, I hadn't heard about it from  a week's worth of morning chat shows. No one has mentioned it to me. Has no one read "She's not my daughter - I want my money back," written by Margarette Driscoll, or is it that I am the only one in the UK who is horrified by it?

Driscoll tells of a man named James who discovered 5 months ago that his 17-year old daughter is actually the biological child of a man his wife met on holiday. As part of his divorce settlement the year before, James had generously given the family house to his ex-wife so that his beloved daughter Ella's life, would not be disrupted by a change of home. Subsequently, a "death-bed" confession of sorts by an informed friend and 2 secretive DNA tests were all it took to blow it all to bits. Now James wants his share of the house back, because he has discovered Ella isn't his biological daughter. Suddenly, Ella's stability and lifestyle are no longer James' priority.

Burning over what he calls his ex-wife's deceit in allegedly keeping Ella's paternity a secret, James wants to sue her to recoup his 40% stake in the house back as compensation for being duped.  But what of the child herself?  This is a girl who adored her father and apparently, he was, in his words "proud [and] devoted" to her. It's like Bambi in the headlights, or the killing of former friends and neighbours in a war zone; mistaking the murder of innocents as collateral damage. This man is so bitter about the paternity fraud his ex-wife allegedly perpretrated against him that he was willing to commit, in my opinion, the far greater injury of dis-owning a child.  He  told her that it wouldn't change anything between them, but in hindsight, he admits "of course, it does."  They sat in his car and cried. Now they don't talk about it. James says that Ella realizes it's about fairness. Oooh. I'd place a bet that says she doesn't.

Driscoll says that James must weigh the potential (emotional, I'm assuming) damage of a lawsuit to Ella against "his own raw, sense of injustice." Hasn't Ella been irrevocably damaged by the revelations already?  James says he's been robbed of money and grandchildren. If "Ella has children, they won't be [his] grandchildren."  Therein lies the real problem: how James defines parent, child, grandfather, grandchildren and unconditional love.  This is where my mind started to stray into the area of fertility, medical progress and 3rd party donor sperm and eggs. 

What makes a person a parent? 

I have been exploring how people come to terms with using 3rd party assisted reproduction techniques to create their family. While James and Ella themselves have no connection to the people who need sperm or egg donation for family-building, the link is the question: What makes a person a parent? People who utilize 3rd party ART to create an embryo, may be:

• single women who are not in a relationship and intend to parent a child on their own;
• heterosexual couples in which one or both of them cannot produce healthy sperm and/or eggs, and want their partner to be able to have a biological child;
• lesbian couples who need sperm to fertilize eggs belonging to one of the women; and
• gay men and single, heterosexual men who need a surrogate to host a pregnancy, using the surrogate's or another woman's eggs.
• any of the above, who opt for embryo donation, so that neither of the parents are genetically linked to the child.

My question is not one of legality, because that varies with countries. We know that there's fully informed intention to parent with the 3rd party donation.  It's more about belonging; bonding emotionally with a child to such an extent that they can't imagine not being that child's parent, even if something is revealed later in life about their genetic parents or health. The origin of the child, becomes quite "beside the point," eclipsed by love and lifelong commitment.

Though thousands do it, it's still a huge leap of faith for anyone seeking to create a family, to go outside the normal template of mom + dad = baby. It rides on the acceptance and trust of the person who is not going to be the biological parent of their child (excepting the embryo donation scenario).  Some people will really struggle with this decision. Will I be my child's real parent in my partner's eyes, in my child's heart and in my own heart, forever? Others will grasp at the option, thrilled to be able to experience the pregnancy and personal birth experience of their baby, regardless of their ability to produce good quality eggs or sperm. When it works, it's a beautiful thing. It's a gift.

As these scenarios continuously become more mainstream, the biggest leap forward in the public consciousness has been the acceptance of a child created through 3rd party ART as the parent's own.  Never mind that when it was new, egg and sperm donation seemed rather freakish. Two important societal changes have taken place to reframe them as a logical and acceptable solution: 1) the passage of laws allowing same-sex parents and 2) a growth in public awareness of infertility.  In a chicken-and-egg dance, medical science has had to catch up with the needs of the IF community, and at the same time, lead the way, making it possible for women to be pregnant and give birth to their child, with either father or mother not genetically related to the child.

The 87% segment of the population that is fertile, knows little of the sacrifices and compromises members of the IF community makes to have their family.  One of the worst "throw-away" lines offered up to an infertile person, is "Well, you can always adopt!"  That's as if adopting is so easy to do!  It's not. The decision to adopt a baby has to pass similar hurdles.  For the infertile person who has always dreamed of a family of their own, there are so many reasons why they would want to keep trying to conceive: love, legacy, experiencing pregnancy, pre-natal bonding, giving birth or supporting a woman through childbirth, having more control (perhaps), etc.  

Others may wonder how an infertile partner will feel about parenting a child who isn't genetically their own, but does have a genetic connection to the other parent. It's unique to each family. In the best case scenario, she/he would feel grateful that modern medicine gives them this option and make no distinction between their own love and commitment to the child and that of the biological parent. In a less positive scenario, it would be a decision made out of guilt and resignation that they cannot give their partner a child in the traditional way. Since egg and sperm donation are usually choices of last resort, this will never be a decision that is made lightly. Ideally, both partners will feel the same about using a donor to help create their embryo. Making that choice together is not just about each other; it's also about the child, who isn't given that choice.

Counselling and fertility coaching should be used to root out any misgivings about using donated egg or sperm, before going through with this fertility treatment.  I would caution anyone considering a 3rd party donation, to not gloss over these issues, for the sake of everyone involved. As an ad for the RSPCA says, "a puppy (substitute "child") is not just for Christmas; it's for life." There's a no- return policy.

But what of after the child is born? Does it feel like she belong more to the genetic parent? Does wanting and loving the child negate any doubts?  While I'd like to believe that all parental love is unconditional, I'm not naive about this not being the only truth. It may be for many or most parents, but we have seen too many cases of neglect and abuse to believe that every parent cherishes their child and puts their welfare before themselves. James' actions show his "daughter"  that his love for her was conditional upon them being related by blood. He is quoted as saying that part of him "wishes he still didn't know," presumably because he could have kept fathering her in blissful ignorance.

To my mind, parenting is made up of intent, love and action. In other words, parenting is what you make of it.  You can love, nurture and be a parent toward any child, by choice.  You can present them to the world as your child, leaving no room for anyone else to scrutinize or criticize. The child who knows the story of his origin can feel as loved, loving and fiercely loyal as with any parent.  It's not about having the same birthmark, hair, mannerisms or  temperament.  It's about commitment. My heart goes out to "Ella" and I wonder what her "father's" actions will sit with her as she matures and has to make decisions about relationships, trust and values.

As for me, I still have more questions than answers.  I will continue to develop a keener understanding of the range of emotions that can be present around the issue of parenting a child who is part of someone else's genetic history, rather than their own.

Comments

[Naomi Richards]

This is realy awful. I feel for Ella. He is still her father no matter what. He was the one who brought her up and she looked up to him. I think any father figure whether blood or not can be a father. If you asked her what she wanted to happen she would probably say she wanted him in her life. He has done nothing wrong and nor has the daughter. I hope that the two of them can continue a relationship despite not being blood but only if that is what she wants. If she does, it would be great if the father respected that. There will be loads of emotional effects on Ella now and in the future regarding how she interacts with others, trust issues and potential relationship difficulties.

[Lisa]

Thank you Naomi. It has occurred to me, since posting this piece, that I didn't focus on James' emotions. I am sure he was devastated to discover that Ella was not his, biologically. My focus was on the child, because I think that James didn't balance his priorities to protect her. How an adult sees a situation will be different from a child's perspective. While their feelings are equally valid, it's still a house and making his point about being allegedly defrauded v. her pain, loss of belonging, trust and happiness.

I'm sure you could sort this out with them. For those who don't know, Naomi is @thekidscoach on Twitter. Follow her for great insights.